1409Joined Sep 2014


EA Gather Town
Improving EA tech work


Looks as though they'd charge consultancy fees, though?

Thanks! I don't have time to check all the links atm. Do you know whether any/all of them offer free or strongly discounted services?

I must have ctrl-Fed right past it :\ Thanks!

I've added TfG. Lynette Bye doesn't look as though she meets the 'free or heavily discounted' requirement.

If we were going to go down the multi-forum path, a less icky option would be to have both forums be open, but one explicitly for more in-depth, more advanced, more aggregative or more whatever posts, and moderation that moved ones that didn't meet the bar back to the more beginner-friendly forum.

Or as the forum currently is, we could just add tags that capture whatever it is the OP is trying to capture - 'beginner-friendly', 'not beginner-friendly' or whatever.

If that's not enough, I'd imagine there's some middle ground UX that we could implement.

12 sounds right. None of the other mechanisms obviously suggest that you'd expect the absolute number of high quality posts to decline (or even not to grow). I would echo that it's not clear the average quality is diminishing either, but the forum filtering UI might not be keeping up with the level of input.

How could I forget? O_O Added to the OP!

"EAG exists to make the world a better place, rather than serve the EA community or make EAs happy."

I'm wary of this claim. Obviously in some top level sense it's true, but it seems reminiscent of the paradox of hedonism, in that I can easily believe that if you consciously optimise events for abstract good-maximisation, you end up maximising good less than if you optimise them for the health of a community of do-gooders.

(I'm not saying this is a case for or against admitting the OP - it's just my reaction to your reaction)

I'm aware of the form, and trying to think honestly about why I haven't used it/don't feel very motivated to. I think there's a few reasons:

  1. Simple akrasia. There's quite a long list of stuff I could say, some quite subjective, some quite dated, some quite personal and therefore uncomfortable to raise since it feels uncomfortable criticising individuals. The logistics of figuring out which things are worth mentioning and which aren't are quite a headache.
  2. Direct self-interest. In practice the EA world is small enough that many things I could say couldn't be submitted anonymously without key details removed. While I do believe that CEA are generally interested in feedback, it's difficult to believe that, with the best will in the world, if I identify individuals in particularly strong ways and they're still at the org, it doesn't lower my expectation of good future interactions with them.
  3. Indirect self-interest/social interest. I like everyone I've interacted with from CEA. Some of them I'd consider friends. I don't want to sour any of those relationships.
  4. Fellow-interest. Some of the issues I could identify relate to group interactions, some of which don't actually involve me, but that I'm reasonably confident haven't been submitted, presumably for similar reasons. I'm especially keen not to accidentally put anyone else in the firing line.
  5. In general I think it's much more effective to discuss issues publicly than anonymously (as this post does) - but that magnifies all the above concerns.
  6. Lack of confidence that submitting feedback will lead to positive change. I could get over some of the above concerns if I were confident that submitting critical feedback would do some real good, but it's hard to have that confidence - both because CEA employees are human, and therefore have status quo bias/a general instinct to rationalise bad actions, and because as I mentioned some of the issues are subjective or dated, and therefore might turn out not to be relevant any more, not to be reasonable on my end, or not to be resolveable for some other reason.

I realise this isn't helpful on an object level, but perhaps it's useful meta-feedback. The last point gives me an idea: large EA orgs could seek out feedback actively, by eg posting discussion threads on their best guess about 'things people in the community might feel bad about re us' with minimal commentary, at least in the OPs, and see if anyone takes the bait. Many of the above concerns would disappear or at least alleviate if it felt like I was just agreeing with a statement rather than submitting multiple whinges.

(ETA: I didn't give you the agreement downvote, fwiw)

Load More